Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 08:51:07 EST
From: Sarah Richardson
Subject: Cross posting news article
To: domestic@cs.cmu.edu
X-Acknowledge-To:
This was sent to Gaynet, but I don't think it got sent to the domestic
list; if it did, please forgive me. It's an interesting enough article
that I wanted to make sure it was widely read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line Determines Tax Benefit for Married Partners By Michele Matassa
Flores, The Seattle Times
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Feb. 7--As more and more employers begin offering health coverage to
unmarried couples, they say they will no longer judge workers based on
marital status, sexual orientation or anything else.
But as true as their motives might be, bosses still have both eyes on the
bottom line.
Most didn't extend the benefits until similar plans worked elsewhere. And
many have limited their offers to gay and lesbian couples, excluding the much
larger population of unmarried heterosexuals.
For businesses, it's a question of how fair they can afford to be. The
Seattle Times announced last week it would begin paying health-care premiums
for partners of gay and lesbian employees but not unmarried heterosexual
couples. Microsoft and Starbucks announced similar policies last year. Other
companies nationally have adopted such plans. Generally, the companies have
said they can't afford to cover all partners, so they cover those who most
need help: people who don't have the option of marrying to obtain benefits.
Such decisions have prompted some employees to accuse their companies of
discrimination and hypocrisy.
Civil-rights lawyers generally agree with the accusations. But, they say,
there isn't much anyone can do about it.
The city of Seattle and King County have laws against discriminating on the
basis of sexual orientation or marital status. And those agencies offer
benefits to all domestic partners. But those laws apply only to the public
agencies themselves, said Nalani Askov, human services analyst with the
city's Office for Women's Rights.
Private companies, Askov said, are governed by a federal employee- benefits
law - one that does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or marital status.
Washington state does not recognize common-law marriages. Civil-rights lawyer
Judith Lonnquist said a case against companies offering benefits to same-sex
couples would be "a tough sell" in court regardless of legal citations.
"Since there's good public policy behind what (the company has) done, I don't
think the courts would be particularly sympathetic to that challenge," she
said. Also, businesses historically have been allowed to use "business
necessity" as a defense. If a company is economically unable to cover
everyone, it can justify making a partial effort.
Microsoft executives received some complaints when the company announced a
same-sex-only policy last April.
Mike Murray, vice president of human resources, would not say how many
employees have enrolled for coverage. Before Microsoft would extend benefits
to all unmarried partners, he said, "we would have to be assured that this
would not create an inordinate financial liability for us. There are just too
many unknowns."
Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen said all benefits packages inherently
favor some groups, such as the sickest workers and those parents who use
subsidized child care when it is available.
Fringe benefits, Blethen said, are a privilege, not a right. Phil Nudelman,
president and chief executive of Group Health Cooperative, disagrees.
Group Health announced in November that it would extend health benefits to
all unmarried couples, a program that will be implemented later this year.
"I think it's an ideological view," Nudelman said. "That is why this country
is in such turmoil trying to figure out which way to go with health care.
It's either a social right or, on the other hand, a commodity like food,
shelter and other things that you can buy if you can afford it.
"I look at health care as a social right." That's quite a turnaround for
Group Health. Four years ago, Group Health was one of three insurance plans
offered to city employees when the city extended benefits to domestic
partners. Because of concern about the risk of such a program, Group Health
levied a surcharge beyond standard premiums to cover the city employees'
partners: $97,000 one year and $452,000 the next year.
In 1992, after seeing the partners' claims were actually less than average,
Group Health dropped its surcharge. Then came the decision last year to offer
its own employees a similar program.
"Its unfair," Nudelman said, "but you can focus more on what's right if
issues of money are lessened."
A local gay-rights advocate said employers are becoming more comfortable
offering benefits because more gay employees are acknowledging they are gay.
"When somebody is 'out,' that means that other people looking at them will
have an idea about a real person and can no longer accept the myths that are
quite prevalent about homosexuality," said Demian (his full legal name) of
the Seattle-based Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples. The task
force, which collects names of employers who announce domestic-partner
benefits, counts about 110 public and private employers nationwide, up from
20 a few years ago.
Despite Demian's faith in changing attitudes, developments in domestic-
partner benefits so far have been driven by money. The city of Seattle's plan
has been widely used as a model, even though it includes all partners.
Enrollment by homosexual employees has been fairly low, fitting a national
pattern. Some attribute that to the fact that many gays and lesbians don't
want their sexual orientation exposed, that the domestic-partner benefits are
taxed as income by the Internal Revenue Service, and that many partners might
already have benefits.
Only 476 city employees have enrolled their partners for benefits, out of
10,000 employees who qualify for benefits. Two-thirds of those who have
enrolled are heterosexual.
=========================================================================
Sarah Richardson srich@vtvm1.bitnet srich@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire